After his prepared remarks, Greenspan took a question from Jacob Frenkel, the former Israeli central banker and vice chairman of the insurance giant American International Group, which was bailed out last year by the federal taxpayers to the tune of more than $100 billion.
With the benefit of hindsight, Frenkel wanted to know, what were the decisions that should have been made to prevent the calamity?
The question was a perfect launching pad for an admission of some degree of personal responsibility. But Greenspan didn’t go there. Instead, he said it was the very success of the Federal Reserve — largely under his tenure — that created the opportunities for “asset bubbles,” like the ones in technology stocks and the housing market. The very effort of creating “balance in the economy,” he said, creates “periods of euphoria.”
“Is there a way to suppress that? I’m not sure,” Greenspan continued. “There has never been, to my knowledge, any historical evidence that that has happened.”
Translation: Sure, I didn’t stop the market mania and subsequent crash, but no one else did, either. Besides, it’s probably impossible anyway. Before returning to his seat, Greenspan added dryly, “I wish those who think it’s possible well.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18980.htmlThe Greenspan Doctrine – a view that modern, technologically advanced financial markets are best left to police themselves – has an increasingly vocal detractor. His name is Alan Greenspan.
As Fed chairman, Mr. Greenspan was a frequent opponent of market regulation. Sophisticated markets, he argued, had become increasingly adept at carving up risk themselves and dispersing it widely to investors and financial institutions best suited to manage it.
The retired chairman has had to revise his views. In comments at a New York Economic Club dinner late Tuesday, the retired Fed chairman steered clear of much self-reflection on his role in the credit boom. But he did take a new swipe at the market’s self-correcting tendencies and bowed his head to a new period of increased regulation. (See C-Span video.)
“All of the sophisticated mathematics and computer wizardry essentially rested on one central premise: that enlightened self interest of owners and managers of financial institutions would lead them to maintain a sufficient buffer against insolvency by actively monitoring and managing their firms’ capital and risk positions,” the Fed chairman said. The premise failed in the summer of 2007, he said, leaving him “deeply dismayed.”
Self-regulation is still a first-line of defense, Mr. Greenspan said. But after the financial collapse of 2007 and 2008, “I see no alternative to a set of heightened federal regulatory rules of behavior for banks and other financial institutions.” He said hoped hoped it would come in the form of tougher capital requirements for banks.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/17/greenspan-vs-the-greenspan-doctrine/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
